ILNews

Opinions June 23, 2011

June 23, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Joseph E. Corcoran v. Bill Wilson, superintendent
07-2093, 07-2182
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, Judge Allen Sharp.
Civil. Reinstates and incorporates by reference the earlier opinion in Corcoran v. Buss to the extent that it reversed the District Court’s judgment granting habeas relief on the basis of the claimed Sixth Amendment violation; and affirmed the District Court’s conclusion that the Indiana courts did not mishandle the issue of his competence to waive post-conviction remedies. Remands to District Court to permit it to address Corcoran’s remaining grounds for habeas relief.

Spurlino Materials LLC v. National Labor Relations Board, et al.
Nos. 10-2875, 10-3049
Petition for review and cross-application for enforcement of order of the National Labor Relations Board.
Civil. Grants the National Labor Relations Board’s application for enforcement of its order against cross-petitioner Spurlino Materials. The NLRB adopted the reasoning of the administrative law judge to find Spurlino engaged in a variety of unfair labor practices and imposed remedial measures. Substantial evidence supports the board’s holding. Denies Spurlino’s cross-petition for review.

Indiana Supreme Court
J.M. v. M.A., et al.
20S04-1012-CV-676
Civil. Reverses trial court decision to set aside the paternity affidavit and remands to give J.M. the opportunity, as agreed to at oral argument, to challenge the paternity affidavit in the manner outlined in Indiana Code.

Elmer D. Baker v. State of Indiana
17S04-1009-CR-500
Criminal. Adopts the reasoning of the California Supreme Court and holds that the state may in its discretion designate a specific act or acts on which it relies to prove a particular charge. If the state decides not to so designate, then the jurors should be instructed that in order to convict the defendant, they must either unanimously agree that the defendant committed the same act or acts or that the defendant committed all of the acts described by the victim and included within the time period charged. Finds Baker did not demonstrate that the instruction error in his case so prejudiced him that he was denied a fair trial.

Lamar M. Crawford v. State of Indiana
49S05-1106-CR-370
Criminal. Affirms denial of two of Crawford’s requests for certain footage relating to his murder investigation for an in camera review. Crawford’s requests did not pass the first step of the three-step test used to determine the discoverability of information in criminal cases.

Crisis Connection, Inc. v. Ronald K. Fromme
19S05-1012-CR-678
Criminal. Reverses trial court order that Crisis Connection turn over counseling records for in camera review before turning them over to Fromme. The records are protected by the victim advocate privilege and Fromme does not have a constitutional right to an in camera review of Crisis Connection’s records. Remands for further proceedings.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Mickey Cundiff v. State of Indiana
31A05-1008-CR-607
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated. Cundiff was not entitled to a speedy trial pursuant to Indiana Criminal Rule 4(B) despite his incarceration on an unrelated cause. A defendant must be incarcerated on the pending charges to be entitled to the benefits of the 70-day speedy trial rule.

Save Our School: Elmhurst High School v. Fort Wayne Community Schools, et al.
02A04-1012-PL-746
Civil plenary. Affirms grant of motion to dismiss Save Our School’s complaint for declaratory judgment against Fort Wayne Community Schools seeking to force Elmhurst High School to remain open. FWCS's decision to close Elmhurst is not an action subject to judicial review as potentially violating the Indiana Constitution.

Elliott McKinley Montgomery v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1012-CR-616
Criminal. Affirms conviction of murder in the perpetration of robbery.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of A.H. and J.H.; Jo.H. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)
89A04-1011-JT-706
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

James Hatala v. Sally Hatala (NFP)
64A03-1011-DR-555
Domestic relation. Affirms in part the dissolution decree and reverses in part. Remands to revalue the proceeds from the condemnation settlements at zero, to recalculate its division of the parties’ marital assets, to determine what effect, if any, this recalculation has on the alleged intended 50-50 division of the marital estate, to recalculate what amount of Sally Hatala’s attorney fees, if any, James Hatala should pay, and to amend the divorce decree accordingly.

Ryan T. McMullen v. State of Indiana (NFP)
27A02-1009-CR-1165
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for Class A felony possession of cocaine and Class D felony possession of marijuana.

Jack Edwards, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
39A05-1006-CR-395
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of murder and one count of attempted murder.

Robert M. Richardson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A04-1010-CR-654
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

SB Hospitality, LLC, et al. v. R.S. Elliott Specialty Supply, Inc. (NFP)
71A05-1008-PL-702
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of SB Hospitality and Gita Patel’s motion to withdraw admissions and the grant of summary judgment for R.S. Elliott Specialty Supply.

KJE, LLC v. RAC Holdings, Inc., and Rex Carroll (NFP)
02A03-1102-PL-52
Civil plenary. Reverses summary judgment for Rex Carroll and RAC Holdings on the issue of whether RAC breached a franchise agreement.

Robert L. Frank, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
17A04-1012-CR-801
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor and Class D felony sexual battery.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of Z.E., et al.; S.E. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)
79A04-1101-JT-27
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Paternity of T.F.-W.; D.F. v. J.W. (NFP)
49A02-1009-JP-976
Juvenile. Affirms grant of legal custody of T.F.-W. to child’s biological father.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

  2. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  3. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  4. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  5. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

ADVERTISEMENT